Election of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speakers - Procedure Committee Contents

4 Timing of elections

When should the elections be
held?

62. In the past, the Speaker has been reaffirmed
(see further below) or elected at the beginning of a Parliament
and the three Deputy Speakers have been appointed on a motion
moved without notice at any time after the State Opening. In both
cases, the post-holders have remained in office without further
confirmation until the end of the Parliament (the date of dissolution
for the Deputy Speakers). There have been no term-limits on the
offices so there has been no bar to any Speaker or Deputy Speaker
taking up a second or even third term of office. Where it has
been necessary to fill a vacancy mid-term, in the case of the
Speaker this has been done by an election, most recently under
Standing Order No. 1B; in the case of the Deputy Speakers, a motion
has been moved without notice to appoint a new Member to the relevant
post.

63. We propose no change to the timing of the
election of the Speaker. It is constitutionally proper for the
Speaker to be chosen at the beginning of a Parliament, however
this may be done. There is a convention that a retiring Speaker
times his departure, where possible, to take place mid-term in
order that his successor has chance to bed in before the start
of the new Parliament. We support this convention, although we
see no need to enshrine it in Standing Orders, and have borne
it in mind in formulating our thoughts on the likelihood of by-elections
amongst the Deputy Speakers.

64. We have considered whether a change is necessary
to the timing of the election of the Deputy Speakers. The position
in 2010 is that, with the first round of elections to all three
posts coinciding with a new Parliament, the existing pattern of
making the appointments immediately after a General Election for
the duration of a Parliament is a convenient solution. Looking
beyond these specific circumstances, an argument has been made
to us that the Deputy Speakers should instead be elected mid-term
or indeed that the elections should be staggered, presumably through
the application of term-limits. This would give the advantage
to the House of having a team of varying levels of experience
at any one time rather than the possibility of a completely new
set of people in the Chair at the beginning of a Parliament. In
1997, for example, all three Deputies were new appointments, with
only the Speaker accustomed to chairing the House. On the other
hand, the Deputies would still need to be confirmed in office
at the start of a Parliament and we are wary of imposing further
disruption on the House in the form of a complicated arrangement
for elections to be held at intervals over the usual length of
a Parliament. We are concerned that it would also work against
the building of a solid team amongst the Speaker and his Deputies
if they could not anticipate a significant period of working together.
We therefore recommend that
the Deputy Speakers be elected at the beginning of a Parliament
to serve for the duration of that Parliament. This will also serve
as an important opportunity to redress the party balance on the
panel which may have been affected by a change in Speaker during
the last Parliament.

Process for re-electing the Speaker
after a General Election

65. Standing Order No. 1A provides that where
the former Speaker is returned to the House after a General Election
and wishes to stand again, the Question "that he do take
the Chair of this House as Speaker" is moved and put forthwith
(once he or she has submitted themselves to the House). If objected
to, the Question is decided by a division. This is mirrored in
the provision under Standing Order No. 1B(13) for the Question
to be put forthwith on a single remaining candidate following
the election of a new Speaker by secret ballot.

66. It is rare for a Speaker returned to the
House in a General Election to be rejected by the House if he
or she wishes to stand again for the post. The last time it happened
was in 1835 when Speaker Manners-Sutton was narrowly defeated
in a contested election by the Whig candidate. The circumstances
of the defeat led to recognition by the House that "a Speaker,
once elected, should cease to have any connection with a political
party; and that he should be entitled to look forward to a continuity
of office guaranteed by all parties".[41]
Although the rules for elections have changed, these principles
have been maintained by the House, even when a landslide such
as in 1906 and 1945 has led to a returning Speaker from a now
minority party being re-elected to the Chair. They underpin the
convention that the Speaker stands in the General Election as
"The Speaker seeking re-election" and is unopposed by
candidates from the main parties.

67. These considerations also strongly influenced
the recommendations from our predecessor Committee in 2001 with
regard to "Special Circumstances at the Start of a Parliament".
The Committee was of the opinion that it would be "highly
undesirable in these circumstances for a multi-candidate ballot
to take place automatically". It argued that:

If it were to become accepted that a change in the
composition of the House following a General Election were as
a matter of course to lead to a change in the occupancy of the
Chair, we believe there are grave dangers that the office itself
would be destabilised and in danger of becoming politicised. Equally,
however, we believe it is important that the House should not
be denied the right to change the Speaker, however unlikely it
may be that that right will be exercised.[42]

68. It is understandable that at that time, with
a new Speaker elected under the former method only months earlier,
it was considered inadvisable to recommend the re-election of
the same Speaker under a secret ballot at the start of the next
Parliament, should he wish to stand again.

69. It could be argued that by analogy with the
earlier stages of that procedure, the decision on the re-election
of a Speaker should from now on be decided by secret ballot. We
have therefore considered whether any change is necessary to bring
the procedure for the re-election of a Speaker in line with that
for elections to both that post and the posts of Deputy Speaker.
In doing so, we have borne in mind the fact that at most only
eleven months will have passed between the election of the current
Speaker and the opening of the next Parliament. Nevertheless,
we are concerned that the current specific circumstances should
not dictate the procedure which it is right for the House to operate
in general.

70. We have considered three options. These are:
the current procedure as set out in Standing Order No. 1A; a similar
procedure but with the decision on the Question made by secret
ballot rather than an open division; or, an open election under
provisions similar to those in Standing Order No. 1B.

1. CURRENT PROCEDURE

71. The current procedure of a motion moved that
the former Speaker do take the Chair, decided if necessary by
a division, has the advantages of familiarity and speed. Importantly,
it also offers the incumbent some protection against political
machinations since the question is framed as a vote of confidence
in the former Speaker. The presumption in favour of the re-election
of the Speaker to his post also lies behind the conventions regarding
his or her return to the House after a General Election unopposed
by the main parties, although this could also be seen as a recognition
of the distance placed between Speaker and party in the preceding
Parliament and the impact of that on his or her electoral chances.
Finally, the procedure allows for dissent without encouraging
it, providing a trigger ballot for a challenge by a candidate
who would enjoy greater support.

72. The disadvantages of the current procedure
are naturally enough inherent in the advantages. The same procedure
which protects the Speaker against the mis-use of power by a newly
elected majority party also means that the new House has first
to reject one candidate before it can choose its own Speaker in
an open election. The House is not offered the opportunity to
weigh the former Speaker against other candidates but only against
him or herself. The open division for deciding the question can
be seen as a deterrent to the House expressing its views honestly,
which discourages not only challenges but also a strong declaration
of support for the incumbent and acts against any feeling by new
members of the House that they have chosen their own Speaker.

2. CONFIRMATION WITH SECRET
BALLOT

73. The current procedure but with the question
decided by a secret ballot has the same advantages as above, but
moving to a secret ballot from an open recorded division as a
means of deciding the question may remove some of the impregnability
of the incumbent in making easier for Members to register a protest
vote without fear of the impact that would have on their chance
to be called to speak in the future. It also has the significant
advantage of consistency with the procedure for electing a Speaker
at other times.

74. To set against this is the disadvantage that
enabling some degree of protest without a full election may well
leave the Speaker wounded but still in post, which would not assist
him or her in his attempts to bolster the House against the Executive.
A secret ballot on a straight yes or no question may also seem
unnecessarily unwieldy.

3. FULL ELECTION

75. A full election, allowing Members to choose
between all would-be candidates, offers the new Parliament a fresh
start with the House choosing its own Speaker. The incumbent may
well have an advantage but this would not be procedurally entrenched
and by moving from a vote of confidence to an open election, any
former Speaker winning the ballot would gain a fresh mandate and
endorsement from the House, regardless of the actual numbers voting
for and against him.

76. On the other hand, such a procedure would
of course lack the advantages of the current one. In particular,
it would risk a more frequent turnover of Speakers with the result
that the House would lose the benefit of continuity in the Chair.
It may also weaken the position of the Speaker who would feel
more vulnerable to change and perhaps less able to stand up to
the Government.

CONCLUSION

77. We recognise that the circumstances
at the start of the forthcoming Parliament, with the current Speaker
having been elected less than a year earlier, make it inadvisable
to suggest radical change at this time. We also believe that the
role of Speaker has changed and will change even more in the future,
as acknowledged by the development of manifestos from candidates
in the last election. These factors together lead us to recommend
that a review be carried out in the next Parliament of all these
issues with a view to establishing whether radical change is needed
for implementation at the opening of the Parliament after that.

78. For now, we recommend that
this House be given an opportunity to decide between the options
of retaining the current procedure for re-electing a former Speaker
at the start of a new Parliament or of adopting a secret ballot
for deciding this question, rather than a division.

PROCESS FOR RE-ELECTING THE DEPUTY
SPEAKERS

79. We have considered whether the same considerations
as set out above should apply to the Deputy Speakers, that is,
whether incumbents wishing to stand again should be subject to
a different form of re-election. We have concluded that there
are political differences in the need to recognise the party balance
in the House and in the fact that the Deputy Speakers stand in
the General Election as party candidates, that make their position
qualitatively different, and
we therefore recommend that the elections for Deputy Speaker should
be held afresh at the start of each Parliament, regardless of
whether candidates have previously held the posts.
This may often result in the previous incumbent being re-elected,
particularly in a time of rapid change where experience and demonstrable
impartiality would be greatly valued.

Impact of change of Speaker upon
the Deputy Speakers

80. It has traditionally been the case that the
Deputy Speakers have remained in office regardless of the change
in a Speaker. We believe that the move to election makes this
tradition even more important by giving the Deputy Speakers their
own mandate. It could be argued that where a Speaker of a different
party to the previous holder of the office is elected, as in June
2009, then the Deputy Speakers should also change in order to
restore the party balance. This is the other side of the coin
to the question of whether the Deputy Speakers should change if
the composition of the House changed and in line with our earlier
recommendation, we believe that this would be both unfair on the
incumbents and unwise for the House in terms of ensuring stability,
experience and impartiality. We therefore agree with our predecessors
in 2002 who argued against such a change. The
term of office of the Deputy Speakers should run independently
of that of the Speaker and a change in the Speaker should not
in itself necessitate a change in the Deputy Speakers.

81. There are of course circumstances in which
the outcome of an election for the speakership may affect the
Deputy Speakers. It has often been the case that the Speaker has
been elected from among the Deputy Speakers. If this were to happen
under the new rules, a by-election would have to be held for the
vacancy. A question may then arise whether this should lead to
a rebalancing of the team. For example, if the Chairman of Ways
and Means (an opposition Member) takes the place of a Speaker
previously drawn from the Government benches, how should the vacancy
be filled? There would evidently need to be a by-election for
a Government party member but should the winner take up the post
of Chairman of Ways and Means or should the existing First Deputy
Chairman as the senior Government member take up that post, with
the Second Deputy Chairman (opposition) becoming First Deputy
and the newly elected Member taking up the Second Deputy Chairman
slot? Different permutations would also apply if the Second Deputy
Chairman won the Speakership and the Chairman of Ways and Means
could find him or herself facing a demotion to the First Deputy
post in order to accommodate either the move of the previous First
Deputy to the Chairman's position or the appointment of a brand
new Chairman. The election of the First Deputy Chairman as Speaker
would cause no such problems and would result in a simple by-election.

82. We do not believe that it is right to demote
an elected postholder in such circumstances. Although the possibility
of additional responsibilities in the future might make the Chairman
of Ways and Means a more covetable post and one of more significance
to the Government, we would argue that the same factors make continuity
and independence all the more important to that post. The House
has historically managed in periods where the classic pattern
of parties holding alternate posts has failed as a result of the
election of a new Speaker, most recently between June 2009 and
now. We see no reason for a change now which would make the Deputy
Speakers posts more explicitly political and we have received
support for this view from at least some of those with whom we
have had discussions. We
recommend that where the balance on the panel is altered by the
election of a Speaker from the opposite side of the House to his
predecessor and a by-election amongst the Deputy Speakers is necessary,
the election be held amongst candidates of the relevant party
to restore the party balance but that there be no redistribution
of posts amongst the Deputy Speakers. As we have stated earlier,
where the party balance is altered but there is no vacancy, as
was the case in 2009, no by-election is called for.

83. We have considered also the circumstances
where a change in the gender of the Speakership affects the balance
on the panel, for example where a retiring female Speaker is replaced
by a man with an all-male team of Deputies. In keeping with our
recommendation above, we do not believe that this should lead
to an automatic by-election where there is no vacancy. Where there
is a vacancy, we believe that party balance must be the priority
and that it may be unduly restrictive to determine that the post
must be filled by a candidate who matched both criteria (for example,
only opposition party women or only government-side men), although
we hope that Members would bear the desirability of gender variation
in mind in encouraging candidates and casting votes. The proper
gender spread would be restored at the next full election at the
start of the Parliament.

Term limits

84. In our interim report we raised the question
of whether term limits should apply to the Speaker and Deputy
Speakers. At present, there are conventions for how long a Speaker
should occupy the Chair but there is no explicit time limit set
out in Standing Orders or otherwise agreed by the House. By contrast,
Standing Order No. 122A provides that a Member is no longer eligible
to be elected as chair of a select committee if he has already
served as chair of that committee for two Parliaments or a continuous
period of eight years whichever is the longer.

85. The Speaker himself has expressed support
for term limits and we have had serious discussions with all parties
on the issue. On balance, we have concluded that, although there
are advantages to the House in terms of circulation, we do not
support the imposition of term limits at this time. We consider
that where candidates are elected to posts, and then subject to
re-election or at least confirmation at the start of each Parliament,
with a secret ballot either occurring or being available where
there is dissent, it would be inconsistent to subject them also
to term limits. The situation differs from select committees as
presently arranged where the committee meets to elect its chairman
knowing which candidate it is expected to choose. If the House
moves to a series of elections for select committee chairmen as
well, then there may well be an argument that the Standing Order
on term limits for such posts becomes redundant. Subject to what
the House decides with respect to the procedure for the re-election
of the Speaker, we believe that this is something that the Committee
should return to in the next Parliament.

Timetable of elections at the
start of a new Parliament

86. The election of the Speaker, by re-affirmation
or a full election, is the first business of the House of Commons
at the start of a new Parliament. The House then sits for several
days for the swearing-in of Members before the Queen's Speech
and business gets underway. Under
our proposed arrangements, the day of the Queen's Speech would
be the first opportunity for the Speaker to announce to the House
the arrangements for the election of the Deputy Speakers. We believe
that this would be in keeping with the significance of the posts
and recommend that this be done.
Although it is possible that some Members may not have taken the
oath at this early stage of a Parliament, the numbers involved
are likely to be few and mainly those who for whatever reason
will not be present to participate in the ballot anyway.

87. The Speaker cannot be expected to sit alone
in the Chair throughout the period of the election of the Deputy
Speakers. One advantage of the current system is that candidates
can be appointed swiftly after the election of the Speaker at
the start of a new Parliament to ensure that there is a full rota
of occupants of the Chair from the first day of parliamentary
business. It is unlikely that an election process could deliver
a result so quickly, especially if time is allowed for unsuccessful
nominees for the Speakership to organise their candidature for
the Deputy posts. Provision therefore needs to be made for this
period. The obvious solution is to draw upon the experience of
outgoing Deputy Speakers, where present, and senior Members from
the Chairmen's Panel acting as temporary Deputy Speakers. We recognise
that these Members may also wish to stand for the election themselves.
In that case, we believe that they should privately notify the
Speaker of their intention so that they are not appointed as temporary
Deputy Speakers for this purpose, although we note that no objection
has ever been made to Deputy Speakers standing as candidates for
the Speakership on the ground that their opportunity to prove
their ability in the Chair has given them an unfair advantage
over other candidates. Standing Orders would need to make clear
that the temporary Deputy Speakers have the same powers as Deputy
Speakers during this short period.

88. We recommend that where
they are still Members of the House after an Election, the outgoing
Deputy Speakers should take the Chair for the duration of the
contest to elect permanent Deputy Speakers after a General Election.
Where necessary, the three longest serving members of the Chairmen's
Panel in the last Parliament who have been returned to the House
should be given temporary powers as Deputy Speakers to fill any
gaps in the rota. Due to the short timescale involved, we do not
envisage these temporary Deputy Speakers receiving any extra remuneration
for their work.

89. The Wright Committee has recommended that
the chairs of certain select committees be elected by the whole
House. If approved, we anticipate that this would lead to a timetable
for the period immediately after the start of a new Parliament
as follows:

Day the House meets: Election of the Speaker

Day of the Queen's Speech: announcement of arrangements for election of Deputy Speakers

Day 3 of Queen's speech: election of Deputy Speakers

One week after the Queen's speech: notification and approval by House of the division of chairs of select committees between the parties

Two weeks later: election of chairs of select committees

We believe that this timetable would be a clear signal
that the House of Commons is committed to reform and the greater
control of its own business by Members by ensuring that the start
of a new Parliament is marked by a series of open elections for
all the most important House posts. It allows time for reflection
upon the various candidates without risking drift in the House
or a sense that business is waiting while the Commons is pre-occupied
with its own internal matters instead of the needs of the country.
We are aware that time is short before the start of the next Parliament
but we believe that the House should now agree to the election
of the Deputy Speakers as a sign of progress in the right direction
of reform.

90. We invite the House to accept
our recommendations in order that the necessary arrangements might
be made by the House authorities to ensure that the Speaker and
Deputy Speaker elections of 2010 are as successful as the election
held in 2009.